And this, my friends, is why most tech reporting sucks. The “snag” is that Apple is so successful that it can’t grow fast enough to appease analysts and investors, whose expectations have never reflected reality anyway.
Amazon has moved from discouraging customers from buying books published by Hatchette (AKA Hachette Livre, including Hachette, Grand Central Publishing, Little, Brown and Company, Orbit), to removing books from sale; you may remember that on January 29, 2010 Amazon pulled all of Macmillan’s books from sale—two days after Apple announced the iPad and the iBooks bookstore. In response, John Sargent of Macmillan announced the adoption of an agency model.
The New York Times “Bits” blog notes:
Amazon, under fire in much of the literary community for energetically discouraging customers from buying books from the publisher Hachette, has abruptly escalated the battle.
The retailer began refusing orders late Thursday for coming Hachette books, including J.K. Rowling’s new novel. The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.”
James Patterson has weighed in in a post titled “Read Four of the Most Important Paragraphs I’ll Ever Write“:
The press doesn’t seem to consider this newsworthy, but there is a war going on between Amazon and book publishers. . . . There are other significant issues people might want to consider. Currently, Amazon is making it difficult to order many books from Little, Brown and Grand Central, which affects readers of authors such as Malcolm Gladwell, Nicholas Sparks, Michael Connelly, me, and hundreds of others whose living depends on book sales. What I don’t understand about this particular battle tactic is how it is in the best interest of Amazon customers. It certainly doesn’t appear to be in the best interest of authors.
From Scott Sherman in The Nation: “University Presses Under Fire How the Internet and slashed budgets have endangered one of higher education’s most important institutions.”
Another setback in the 1960s and 1970s was the rise of large publishing conglomerates such as Elselvier, Springer and Wiley, which aggressively expanded their acquisition of science journals. This is a fact of considerable importance: subscriptions to science journals are expensive (a one-year subscription to Brain Research costs $19,952), so academic libraries have had to devote considerable financial resources to retain them, and that has diminished their budgets for humanities and social science monographs. In Books in the Digital Age (2005), the Cambridge sociologist John B. Thompson explains that “in 1997 journals were thirty times more expensive than they were in 1970,” and the trend shows no signs of changing.
The article presents multiple points of view, and a number of recent efforts to change the way university presses work—including the roles of ebooks/digital scholarship and open access scholarship, but notes one age-old problem inherent in the interactions between scholars, tenure, and university presses:
A crucial question faces university presses and the universities themselves: Who will pay for the dissemination of scholarship? University presses provide a number of vital functions for the academy as a whole—starting with the fact that, by and large, young professors achieve promotion and tenure based on monographs they publish. But the funding for the entire system is lopsided. If the University of Colorado Press publishes a monograph by a young professor at Dartmouth that enables that scholar to obtain tenure, then the University of Colorado Press, with its very modest budget, is in effect subsidizing Dartmouth, which has an endowment of $3.7 billion as well as its own small press. In his New Media & Society essay, Pochoda noted that approximately 100 university presses are subsidizing “at least 1,000 other universities and colleges who are free riders on a system that they rely on but do not support.”
I note that the price of a printed scholarly monograph, say a book that began as a Ph.D. dissertation, runs between $40.00 and $90.00 dollars. This makes it unlikely that the book will be purchased widely by younger scholars at the dissertation stage, or independent scholars or engaged readers of the general public. It seems to be a reasonable middle-way to provide a digital version for half the price, even if that digital version is a non-printable .PDF file derived from the file sent to the printer.
I note, for the curious, that it is not even slightly unusual for a scholarly monograph from a university press to not only not provide the author with an advance, the author likely will not be offered royalties unless it’s one of the larger presses with wider distribution.
It feels like the aspects of Portland that are so valued are facilitating the influx of people that are destroying what we all love about the city.
There’s a phenomenon where a slightly run down neighborhood in an urban area, often with lots of warehouse space, becomes a residential area for artists, musicians and queers because the slightly run-down part and the older houses and warehouse space means artists, musicians and queers can afford to rent there.
So they move in, they create businesses and artists studios and co-ops and homes. Those funky shops and artists studios attract people who like art and music and good food and kid-friendly neighborhoods and single dwelling and small shared housing.
And then the rent goes up. And then the landlords decide to demolish the turn of the century houses, the old warehouses turned into lofts and studios and small businesses for artisans, and build condos.
I’ve seen it happen to Minneapolis, Portland Maine, San Francisco. It’s happened to Pearl Street and the Rose quarter in Portland, and now, it’s happening to Division street.
From The New Yorker: “Jill Abramson and The Times: What Went Wrong?” by Ken Auletta
There is one more question: Why did the Times, which so heralded the hiring of its first female executive editor, terminate Abramson in such a brutal fashion? What else happened between Thompson’s April 28th plea for her to stay longer and her termination by Sulzberger, eleven days later, on Friday, May 9th?
Judge Cote is the judge in the DOJ’s case against Apple and various publishers; this is an interesting background piece.
Since introducing the Kindle in 2007—and setting e-book prices at, or more often substantially below, its own costs—Amazon has wreaked havoc, and panic, among publishers. Beyond devaluing lucrative hardcover books, such rock-bottom prices have helped destroy the “brick-and-mortar” stores where books are showcased. Nothing the publishers did—delaying the release of e-books, complaining to Amazon, upping their wholesale prices to the company, or, in the case of one house, Hachette, actually going to the Justice Department to gripe—seemed to work.
But Apple offered salvation. By opening up an iBookstore in tandem with the new iPad, Apple could “trounce” Amazon, Eddy Cue, the Apple executive who’d pioneered iTunes and other Apple content stores, wrote Jobs in late 2009. Jobs quickly signed on. But Cue had to move fast: the iPad was to make its debut on January 27, 2010, and Jobs wanted to unveil iBooks with it. And Jobs himself was dying.
To each of the Big Six publishing houses, Cue offered the same deal: rather than selling e-books wholesale and letting retailers price them, the publishers themselves would set e-book prices; Apple would only be an agent, collecting 30 percent of sales. By January 26, five of the publishers—only Random House refused—had agreed. Amazon, too, quickly fell in line. E-book prices quickly rose. Soon came the lawsuits—class actions on behalf of consumers; cases filed by various state attorneys general. And then, in April 2012—largely, Apple has charged, at Amazon’s instigation—came the Justice Department’s case. All said Apple and the publishers had conspired together in violation of federal anti-trust laws.
David Margolick. “The Judge That Apple Hates.”
Keep in mind that the NYT lost a lawsuit regarding pay inequality and female staffers.
I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained. But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”
Ken Auletta in The New YorkerWhy Jill Abramson was Fired.
Presented without comment, for all those who love Dorothy Dunnett’s fabulous Lymond Chronicles.
OK, maybe a comment; these are lovely, beautifully executed, but there’s Luttrell in there . . .
Heidi Rozen, Standord MBA and faculty member, co-founder of classic Mac developer T/Maker, former Apple Vice President of World-Wide Developer Relations, reminisces about negotiating with Steve Jobs, and what she learned:
On the appointed day, after waiting in the lobby for 45 minutes (this, I would come to learn, was par for the course for meetings with Steve), I was called up to Steve’s cubicle. I remember to this day how completely nervous I felt. But I had my contract in hand and I knew my numbers cold.
Shortly into my pitch, Steve took the contract from me and scanned down to the key term, the royalty rate. I had pitched 15%, our standard. Steve pointed at it and said,
“15%? That is ridiculous. I want 50%.”
Sometimes when I listen to people talk about negotiating, whether it’s for a consulting gig, a salary or a publishing contract, they seem to frame the event in the context of a zero/sum game, of winning or losing.
Sometimes it’s about finding a way for both parties to win.